Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade

COMPERE: The
world's most powerful woman, US Secretary of State Condoleezza
Rice, has just addressed the media in Perth as part of her
visit to Western Australia. Here is some of what she had to
say.

CONDOLEEZZA RICE: We've
covered the full range of issues in our more than two and a
half hour bilateral on the plane. But I do have to reveal a
little secret: we did spend a little bit of the time with
Stephen trying to explain cricket to me, and I trying to
explain American football to him. As long as there are no
tests, I think that sooner or later I'd like to try out my
knowledge and I hope he'll have a chance to try out his
knowledge.

In short, Stephen thank you for the invitation to this
really beautiful place, this very special part of Australia. It
reminds me of the western United States, the kind of openness
and optimism that is here. Being here on the grounds of this
wonderful park, having visited the wonderful memorial, it's a
great [break in transmission] the opportunity to celebrate what
is an extraordinary relationship between the United States and
Australia, and our friendship as well.

SMITH: Well,
thanks very much Madam Secretary. For the record I should say
that the bilateral lasted for three hours; one hour on regional
and international matters, an hour and a quarter on cricket,
and three quarters of an hour on American football.

RICE:
[Laughs]

SMITH: Now, in
accordance with the usual customs, the first question to the
United States media.

QUESTION: Thank
you. Matt Leigh(*) from AP.

RICE:
Right.

QUESTION:
Madam Secretary, the issue of the detainees at Guantanamo Bay
is a source of worldwide anger and frustration. You may have
noticed here there were some small protests, and your next stop
in Auckland there's a group of students who were offered a
$5000 reward for anyone who can successfully perform a
citizen's arrest on you for violations of the Geneva
Convention.

I'm wondering, A, if you're aware of this and what you make
of it. And more importantly, B, how are the plans going to
close down Guantanamo? Can you commit, that the Administration
commit, to closing it down by the time President Bush leaves
office?

RICE: Well,
first of all, protest is a part of democratic society and
student protests are particularly a long honoured tradition in
democratic society. And I can only say that the United States
has done everything that it can to - in this war on terror to
live up to our international and our national laws and
obligations. Guantanamo is a detention centre that, as the
President has said, we would very much like to close.

The problem of course is that there are dangerous people
there who cannot be returned and put among innocent
populations. We are hopeful that there will be the beginnings
of the bringing to justice the military tribunals for those
people who are there. But let's not forget that a lot of
innocent people have died at the hands of terrorists. And we
must do everything that we can within our obligations legally
and in terms of our treaty obligations to prevent that from
ever happening again. And the President is dedicated to
that.

We have tried to return people from Guantanamo to their home
states, if at all possible, but there are some people that
we've not been able to do that with. And the one thing that we
cannot do is to release people into a population that is
innocent and would be unable to defend itself.

SMITH: Okay.
First question from the Australian side.

QUESTION:
Dr Rice, this morning a student asked you if you were keen on
becoming president. Have you ruled it out completely?

RICE: Yes
[laughs]. Look, I'm sure it's a great job - president - but I
really… I know what I want to do with my life and I know
the great honour that I've had of serving the United States as
its chief diplomat. But the United States is an extraordinary
country. It's a country that I love very, very deeply. It's a
country that I've been proud to represent. It's a country that
sometimes has to take difficult decisions, and we're not always
popular in taking those decisions. But I hope that people know
that we've always taken them in hopes of defending freedom,
defending values, and making the world a better place.

And in representing my country, I've been proud to be able
to say that our country has come an awfully long way. You know,
I was born into segregated Birmingham Alabama. There was
actually no guarantee that my father could vote when I was born
in 1954 in Alabama. And that I stand here as Secretary of State
and, as I said to Stephen, in 12 years we will not have had a
white male Secretary of State, so there's something very
special about the United States.

And so it's a great country to represent abroad. And when
I've done that, and I've got a sprint ahead of me still until
I'm done, but when I am, I look forward to returning to my
home, I look forward to returning to working on the many issues
that concern me. But especially, one of the reasons Stephen and
I have become, I think, good friends is he has a great and
abiding interest in education, as do I.

And since I believe very strongly that great multiethnic
societies like the United States or Australia, great
multiethnic democracies, have to be certain to provide
educational opportunities for their people, have to be certain
that it is true that it doesn't matter where you came from, it
matters where you're going, that circumstances of birth are not
in fact a hindrance to who you will be.

That's what I'd like to do, is to go back and make sure that I
do my part to secure that again for America.

And so I have enormous admiration for people who do run for
office, like my friend here. And we certainly put them through
their paces, as an electorate should. But I know where I'm
going and who I am on that score.

SMITH: Second
question from United States media.

QUESTION:
Sue Pleming from Reuters. Australia has pulled its combat
forces out of Iraq. Secretary Rice, would you like to see more
of those forces moved to Afghanistan where there's a great need
for more forces? And to both of you, do you think that Pakistan
is doing a good enough job in the border areas?

RICE:
First of all, let me just say how much we appreciate the
contribution of Australia's forces and we were able, because of
Australia's openness and cooperation I think, to achieve the
withdrawal of Australian forces from Iraq that had been a part
of the promise of the incoming Australian Government. And we
were able to do it in a way that provided safety and
consistency for the forces remaining on the ground.

And now in Afghanistan we're fighting together in some
difficult places like Oruzgan province where many of the
Australian forces are, and the contribution is tremendously
appreciated. Look, we all have to look at what we can do and I
know that on the reconstruction and civil side, which is after
all a part of the counterterrorism, counterinsurgency struggle
as well, Australia is doing even more.

But what we need to do relates to the second part of your
question, is to look hard at how the Taliban is regrouping, why
the Taliban is fighting in the way that they are now. They
generally are taken on and defeated pretty handily when they
come in actual military formations but they certainly are -
there's an up-tick in the terrorism not just against forces but
against he Afghan people. And in that regard everybody needs to
do more, but Pakistan does need to do more.

That border; we understand that it's difficult, we
understand that the north-west frontier area is difficult, but
militants cannot be allowed to organise there and to plan there
and to engage across the border. And so, yes, more needs to be
done.

SMITH: Thank
you. Just to add to those remarks. Firstly, in the case of
Iraq, as you know, that was an election commitment and we
implemented that. That was done with the full cooperation of
the Untied States Administration, also with the Iraqi
Government and also other partners in Iraq, in particular the
British. And as a logistical exercise, that was a very, very
successful exercise.

And I was in Iraq recently, and in the course of being in
Iraq I announced a substantial increase in respect of
Australia's contribution on the civil reconstruction side.

In addition to securing peace and stability in troubled
areas, we also have to give those nations the chance to grow
their capacity. And so our increased assistance in Iraq goes to
building state institutions, increasing capacity.

So far as Afghanistan is concerned, we have nearly 1000
troops in Afghanistan, at 1060-odd. We are the largest non-NATO
contributor. We are in Oruzgan province in the south where the
fighting is often at its most difficult and its most dangerous.
And this morning we had the pleasure of meeting people who had
been in that theatre.

We make a substantial contribution. We've made it clear that
we don't see any increase in the combat or military or defence
capability that we have in Afghanistan.

But as well, in recent times, I've also announced when I was
in Afghanistan a further substantial Australian contribution
for nation building and capacity building.

We are very grateful for the role that our forces play in
Afghanistan. And at Swanbourne Barracks I said to some of the
regiment there that they do really need to understand that the
work they do in difficult and dangerous circumstances is very
genuinely appreciated by our friends and allies.

I also made the point that, and in the vernacular, that the
work that they do in conjunction with our friends and allies,
whether it's combat or a peacekeeping role, helps give foreign
ministers of Australia street cred when they walk in the door.
That is unambiguously the case.

And it's a very important role that they play for
international peace and security but an important role they
play on behalf of their nation.

When it comes to Pakistan, I have made the point, as I did
to the Pakistan representatives in Singapore in the course of
the ASEAN regional forum, that we are very concerned about the
Afghanistan Pakistan border area. We don't believe that that
can be regarded simply as a bilateral matter between Pakistan
and Afghanistan. It is an issue which has regional and
international community consequences.

There is no doubt that the current international hotbed of
terrorism is in that area; is in the Pakistan border area in
Afghanistan. One thing we know about modern terrorism, it is
mobile and moves very quickly, either north and west to Europe
or south and east to Asia. And Australia has already been on
the receiving end and adverse consequences of terrorist
activity in South-East Asia.

So we have raised the border issue with the Pakistan
Government, as we have with our ally the United States and
other friends in Afghanistan, in particular the British.

But this is an area where both the regional community and
the international community needs to do more. We do need to
engage Pakistan more in a dialogue and we do need, in my view,
to be rendering assistance to Pakistan at a time which is very,
very difficult for them.

Second question, Australian media.

QUESTION:
Dr Rice, Western Australia is a state with significant uranium
reserves. Has your agreement or talks with India and
Australia's role and what part we could play, come up in your
talks? And do you think there's a role for us there?

CONDOLEEZA RICE: Well, we have talked about the US
India civil nuclear deal. I'll ask Stephen to speak to the
Australian position but the - we've made very clear that we
believe that this is an agreement that serves the interests of
the US Indian strategic relationship. It serves the interests
of India in terms of its needs for energy that is not
hydrocarbons based. They want a civil nuclear program and this
is a way for them to have one. And, frankly, it serves the
interests of the non-proliferation regime. India is not a party
to the NPT, but the regime, the broader regime is one in which
even non-NPT states need to take certain obligations in terms
of proliferation, and India has a good record in terms of
proliferation.

And the fact that Mohamed ElBaradei, the director general of
the IAEA, has been supportive of this deal, I think, supports
the notion that this is good for the international
non-proliferation regime.

I know that there will be consultations coming up soon in
the IAEA board of governors and then in the nuclear suppliers
group.

Australia, of course, will participate in those and I don't
expect that Australia has yet to make a decision; that's not
what's being asked. But I know that I've had - I found a very
open hearing and listener as we've put forward the case for
this deal, and as the Indians have as well.

SMITH: Well,
there are two separate issues. First is the export of
Australian uranium. The Government has a longstanding party
policy position which is we don't export uranium to a country
that's not a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. And
I've made that clear to Indian officials and the Indian
Government pretty much from day one of the new Australian
Government's term in office.

The India US nuclear civil arrangement is a separate matter
and a matter indeed that - my memory is, Secretary, that when
we first met in Washington we discussed it there, as we have
regularly, and as I have with Indian officials and Minister
Mukherjee recently, and as the Prime Minister did, Prime
Minister Rudd with Prime Minister Singh in the margins of the
G8 meeting recently.

Our position on the US India civil nuclear arrangement is
that if and when the arrangement emerged from effectively the
Indian parliament to the Nuclear Suppliers Group and the
International Atomic Energy Agency, then we would put our mind
to the detail of the agreement. The vote of confidence in the
Indian Prime Minister and Indian Government in the course of
this week now makes it almost certain that the arrangement will
proceed to the Nuclear Suppliers Group and the International
Atomic Energy Agency's board of governors.

The fact that our policy position prevents us from exporting
uranium to India does not prevent us from joining a consensus
to support the civil nuclear deal. And I've indicated both to
the Indian Minister of State, who was in Singapore, and to the
Secretary of State that we are now looking in detail at the
arrangement and agreement, looking at the views of other
players in the nuclear suppliers group and the Atomic Energy
Agency itself.

And we're doing that with a positive and constructive frame
of mind. We don't proceed on the basis that our policy position
on the export of uranium prohibits or prevents us from
supporting that arrangement, and so we're looking at it in a
positive and constructive manner. And we're also, as I've made
clear consistently to the United States and India, when we do
that assessment, looking very carefully at the strategic
importance that both the United States and India place on this
arrangement.

I think it's third strike you're out over here.

RICE: [Laughs]
Lach?

QUESTION: I'm
Lachlan Carmichael from AFP news agency.

Madame Secretary, you've been telling us about progress made
privately between the Israelis and Palestinians toward a draft
peace agreement. Next week there will be the trilateral in
Washington. Will you be able finally to give some public
details of the progress they've been making, and will you be
applying pressure to prompt both sides into that deal you
really want before you leave office…

RICE:
Well…

QUESTION: …
before President George Bush leaves office?

RICE: Well, the
first answer is no, we won't be providing details of what goes
on in the trilateral.

They are - the Israelis and the Palestinians have their
first serious peace process in seven years, and they are
discussing very sensitive and difficult issues.

I would remind that the most effective negotiations they
probably ever had were Oslo and no-one even knew they were
negotiating. And they - so I think they're really rather wise
to negotiate seriously, to work with each other, to see if they
can overcome differences without having a daily accounting of
how well they're doing or how badly or who's up or who's down.
And that's what they want to avoid, and I'm going to stick
scrupulously to the same view.

I think the United States can help them to see where there
are points of convergence, and that's what I generally do in
the trilaterals. I think I can also, because I stay in very
close contact with all of my colleagues in the international
community, including Australia, I think I can represent to them
some of the things that the international community might be
willing to do to help them in getting to a deal and making a
deal work.

Now, there is still time for them to, in accordance with
Annapolis, reach agreement by the end of the year and we'll
keep working toward that goal. But the most important thing
right now is to take note of how very seriously they are
negotiating, to note that there was not even last year a peace
process at this time, and to recognise that since this
president came into office, the notion of two states living
side by side in peace and security has just become kind of
common wisdom. We all say it.

Well in fact, in 2001, that was not the position either of
the Likud Government of Ariel Sharon or of much of the
international community.

And so the president has, in stating clearly American policy
for a two-state solution and helping to get through the
extraordinarily difficult years of 2001, 2002, 2003, the Second
Intifada, in helping to get through the withdrawal from Gaza,
the Lebanon war and then launching Annapolis, I think has laid
a firm foundation on which these two parties can finally end
their conflict.

The work now is to keep pressing ahead, but pressing ahead
in a way that preserves the workability of this process, and
that really means preserving the confidentiality of their
discussions.

SMITH: Okay.
Last one. We've had the two opening bowlers from the Australian
side, now it's first change.

RICE:
[Laughs]

QUESTION:
Dr Rice, if we just lighten up as we wrap up here. President
Bush coming to the end of his term. Over the years satirists
have had a bit of fun with him; in Australia, he may be seen as
a larrikin. What's he like as a boss?

RICE:
President Bush, what's he like as a boss?

QUESTION:
Yeah.

RICE: Well, he
is somebody who really proceeds from a kind of deep sense of
principle and he sometimes finds things outrageous. He finds -
I mean, he's outraged by certain things.

And I'll tell you something that he finds very difficult to
deal with. He finds it difficult when he sees people who live
in tyranny.

I know that that's considered somewhat old fashioned to
believe that no man, woman or child should have to live in
tyranny, but as somebody who himself is free, he's offended by
the continuance of dictatorships in this world.

Now, I think that has united us and united this
administration. I know that there's sometimes a misreading of
that to suggest that we're somehow naïve that on our watch
all dictatorships were going to go away, we were going to end
tyranny for all time. That's not the point, because everyone
understands that the ending of tyranny is a long, long, long
term process that takes generations and generations. But if
somebody doesn't speak up for the principle that it's simply
wrong for men and women to live in the absence of freedom, then
it's never going to happen.

And, you know, I'm a firm believer that it's all right to be
a little bit on the side of too optimistic and too idealistic
rather than too cynical and too pessimistic about human beings
and what they can achieve, because if you look back over
history, whether it was the founding of the United States of
America itself, which probably never should've come into being
given the great struggles against the British Empire, or our
own Civil War which almost did end the American experiment, to
the collapse of a country with 30,000 nuclear weapons and five
million men under arms peacefully without a shot, one night the
hammer and sickle came down, the tri-colour went up, did we
think any of that possible? Well, those things that seemed
impossible now seem, in retrospect, inevitable.

So I think the President is someone who, if he has to err,
he'll err on the side of idealism and optimism. And, you know,
when you have to get up and go to work every day post-9/11,
where, for us quite frankly every day is September 12, it's an
awfully good thing to work for somebody and for the President
of the United States who really is, at heart, an idealist and
an optimist.